RV6 aileron woes

[IO390]

I'm building new ailerons for my (bought, not built), RV6.

Just before the chapter 11 I bought parts to build two ailerons and finally started them this winter. Unfortunately I screwed up - it went well until the last part, when I drilled the bottom spar holes too far forward and therefore too close to the bend in the spar to be able to dimple. This happened because the nose ribs were over sized and I didn't reduce them in size sufficiently (I didn't realise just how basic RV6 parts were compared to newer kits). These RV6 aileron skins were are punched, but none of the other parts are.



Womp.

At this point everything was match drilled, so I figured I'd suck it up and start again from scratch.

So, $1500 down and I have a second set of aileron parts. I've alodined the stiffeners and primed those as well as the skins, and riveted them in. I have the skeletons clecoed together with the exception of the water pipe, and a wood tool made exactly to the plans so I can get the nose ribs right this time.



So I get the nose ribs so they fit the plan perfectly (pictured prior to adjusting the water pipe attachment tabs):





As far as I am concerned, these ribs now match the plans as close to perfectly as is reasonable.

I then clamped the skeleton into the upper surface of the skin with the upper spar flange being correctly placed over the punched holes in the skin. When I wrap the forward part of the skin around the nose rib, this is what happens:



So, with the punched holes for the bottom spar flange correctly placed, the curvature of this skin is way off. Here's another angle showing the lower spar flange hole placement



It seems to me that the radius around the water pipe in the skin has been made in the wrong place. Here's a photo of the new skins with the last skins I had, you can see the radius is offset about 3/16" on the new skins when compared to the pre punched water pipe rivet holes:

New skins:, with blue lines showing the approximate beginning, end and centre of the radius:



Old skins with the same lines added:




As you can see, the radiuses are not in the same place.

If I add my outline tool to make the leading edge of the skin the same shape as the plan, then this is what I get. The lower spar flange holes are nowhere near.



And if I just try and push the bottom of the leading edge flat against the nose rib:




So, what would you do? The skins arrived with dents in the trailing edges so I'm trying to get some credit from Vans for this (no response to my emails after 2 weeks and two phone calls...) but I need them done so I pressed on with the assembly. I can't wait for another set of skins to arrive, and the set I ordered back in 2023 were also dented although I didn't mention it and just pressed on with the work. Annoyingly, those skins were actually bent correctly!

Right now, all I can think of is to take a piece of tube or bar and drill holes in it so I can screw it to another piece of tube through the pre punched rivet holes. I could then roll the radius along a bit, but that might make the skin try to concave on the lower surface of the aileron. What does VAF think? I'll do anything to avoid having to make a third set of ailerons!

 

[dwollen89]

Have you tried putting the water pipe in there to see if it changes anything? Also, did you check the part numbers on the end ribs to make sure they are correct? Those look the same as my RV7 so guessing they’re similar but possibly not the same. I’d think your answer lies in the end ribs as that gives the shape of the leading edge. Did you compare the components to the ones on the plane? Just spit balling here. I’m guessing a 6 builder will be more helpful.

 

[Stoo]

I remember the same problem when I built my ailerons. I corrected the fit by putting shims between the skin and the upper rib flanges.
Stewart Willoughby, 6

 

[Dan 57]

I might have misread the story, but can't you use the first set of skins received with the new skeleton? It seems weird to me that your 1st set was fitting and the 2nd does not... so QED, must be different.
Any part number stickers on them skins?
Not sure as to what equipment you have access to, but making new skins is a pretty simple job on a bending or rolling brake, but you'd need the blanks for that.
As to correct that bend to push it in the correct location... a rather difficult undertaking.

 

[PaulvS]

What effect is there on the position of the trailing edge if the clamping starts from the leading edge with the nose in the correct position?

 

[IO390]

Thanks for the replies everyone.

Because the bend is so far off to where it should be, shimming the nose rib will modify the shape of the LE sufficiently that it will no longer fit onto the wing. I've emailed Vans technical support too, hopefully they will reply as recently they haven't been responding to emails for me.

I think the bottom line is unless I can successfully roll the bend along, these skins won't be usable. Luckily I haven't match drilled anything to the new skeleton yet.

 

[IO390]

What effect is there on the position of the trailing edge if the clamping starts from the leading edge with the nose in the correct position?

If I move the nose rib forward enough to fill the skin correctly, the bottom spar holes wind up about 1/4" away from the spar due to the position of the leading edge bend.

 

[JonJay]

That’s a bummer. I do not remember if my 6 aileron skins were prepunched. I don’t think they were. But regardless, it sounds like you don’t have enough “meat” left anyway to drill your own holes.
Perhaps Vans can send you a non punched skin and leave some extra width? You would have to trim to fit, but seeing how you are tackling this, my guess is that would be easier and you could handle it.
Another option is too make them yourself, but you would need to find a local machine shop with a brake that has a die to match the pipe, or can weld the pipe to a die. which is a long shot, and $$$.
Hopefully, Vans can just get it right and you can move on. Keep us posted.

 

[IO390]

I phoned vans again today but this time spoke to the builder support line. I directed him to this thread and he was surprised that the skins were bent wrong, AND had arrived with damage (there were dents in the trailing edges that I didn’t detail in this thread). So they’re going to send me a new set of skins - third time lucky

 

[IO390]

Unfortunately, since promising to send me a new set of skins over the phone, vans promptly forgot about this. When I chased up, they didn’t seem to know anything about the problem so after explaining it and sending over the details, for a third time, they are now demanding that I return the skins.

Has anyone else had this experience? It seems bizarre to return scrap skins, especially seeing as I will have to ship them from the UK.

I’m tempted to raise the issue with my credit card company and charge back the payment.

 

[IO390]

Time for a rant about Vans. I need to preface this by saying that I give companies a lot of leeway for dealing with problems. I own a business myself and I am all too aware that mistakes happen. Unfortunately, Vans have been utterly useless and inconsistent.

I'm also aware that these are parts for a kit which has been out of production for 25 years. But that doesn't absolve them from providing a decent and fair service to customers, and they are still choosing to sell these parts.

Just to outline the order of events:
- In 2024 I ordered the parts to build some RV6 ailerons. They arrived a few months later and I got on with the build. As described in the OP, the front bend radius around the water pipe was made in the wrong place. I was able to confirm this by comparing them with a previous set of skins which were made correctly (IE the bend in the right place). The skins also arrived with some dents which I wasn't too concerned about.

- Vans immediately promised to replace the skins over the phone. Nothing happened for a few weeks so I chased up and was told by someone else that they would not send me replacements unless I returned the old ones... This argument dragged out over some weeks.

- A few months later, I get an email out of the blue saying that they would send me new skins free of charge. Great! They promised to ship within the next couple of months but as expected this dragged out, which I didn't mind.

- 2 weeks ago (a year since the problem was raised with vans) one skin shows up which has the same problem as before. I remind Vans that they'd only shipped one skin (this turned out to be a mistake) so they sent the second one fairly quickly. The second one was correct! Well, the second skin was made in 2021 according to the label, whereas the incorrect one was made last October.



- I then show Vans the problem, with many photos of the skins side by side and explaining what the problem was. Again, different responses from different people. One of the tech support guys opted to simply insult me by saying that the older kits require more skill to build, until I sent photos of the two skins side by side, after which he recommended replacement. The case then moved on to someone else who initially seemed helpful then just fobbed me off by saying that the parts were made "within tolerance".

Now, I get that the older kits were not the same as today's lego kits. But this was a pre-punched pre-formed skin, with one of the forms made in the wrong place. If it were a blank sheet of aluminium supplied for a plans build, then sure I expect to form it myself, but in buying the pre made part I am therefore not expecting to have to re-form a 4 foot section of aluminium.

For Vans to drag this out over a year and then finally wash their hands of it is just really poor and I'm very disappointed with them.

I've given up trying to get any more parts from Vans so I spent quite some time designing a form for 3d printing so I could move the radius back to where it's supposed to be and salvage the last set of skins which were mostly ready for final assembly. These were mounted to a steel square section and then located using pins though the pre-punched water pipe rivet holes. BTW, the skin outline and prepunched holes were all in the right places, as was the trailing edge bend.





It took some time to get the form correct because it needed to both add a radius on one side while removing part of it on the other.

These sections were then clamped together.



It worked!! Now the radius has moved to the right place and I can finally finish making the ailerons.




Hopefully in time Vans will regain their old customer service ethics. If they treat me poorly over some small parts like this, no way would I entertain building a whole kit.

 

[Dan 57]

don't know how much time you spend making all this nice tooling... but old fashion (as well as old with nil fashion) as I am, I'd probably just would have bought some blanks and rolled them myself over the pipe.

 

[blaplante]

It is very sad to see Van's support for the most popular model they've made degrade so much.
See https://www.vansaircraft.com/first-flights/
By their own numbers, over 2700 RV-6's have flown. Not sold... FLOWN.
The 7's are nearly at 2000,
while the 14 is at 282.

I do 'get it'. The heyday of 6 production was 20 years ago or more.
Somehow I suspect Cessna's support for the 1976 172N is better.

 

[rmartingt]

don't know how much time you spend making all this nice tooling...

Indeed. But it's impressive work!

 

[Radioflyer]

It is very sad to see Van's support for the most popular model they've made degrade so much.
See https://www.vansaircraft.com/first-flights/
By their own numbers, over 2700 RV-6's have flown. Not sold... FLOWN.
The 7's are nearly at 2000,
while the 14 is at 282.

I do 'get it'. The heyday of 6 production was 20 years ago or more.
Somehow I suspect Cessna's support for the 1976 172N is better.

Indeed, it still irks me that they removed the RV6/6A from their website lineup of models. I can understand how production has discontinued, but it should remain in the lineup , at the very least, for loyalty and moral support.

 

[Stevea]

Indeed, it still irks me that they removed the RV6/6A from their website lineup of models. I can understand how production has discontinued, but it should remain in the lineup , at the very least, for loyalty and moral support.

Why list a model no longer in production? I don’t know of any company that does this, with the possible exception of one that is trying to sell inventory that is already in stock.

The 6/6A support pages and performance specs are still on the website.

As a 6A builder, I’m OK with Van’s decision to remove the 6/6A from the front page “lineup”, since it is no longer in production. They are, after all, trying to make money to stay in business.

 

[Sam Buchanan]

Indeed, it still irks me that they removed the RV6/6A from their website lineup of models. I can understand how production has discontinued, but it should remain in the lineup , at the very least, for loyalty and moral support.

I suspect there are now no individuals in tech support who have personal experience with building a RV-4 or RV-6. We have emotional reasons for our opinions but they may not align with business decisions that are necessary in a company trying to regain its footing.

 

[Snowflake]

Why list a model no longer in production? I don’t know of any company that does this, with the possible exception of one that is trying to sell inventory that is already in stock.

Last I checked the site is still up. You just have to replace 4 with 6 in the URL for the rv4.

 

[phloidtrout]

That's a really sad reflection of how Vans has evolved over the past 10 years, but right in line with their handling of the epic quality issues that bankrupted them.
Your repair procedure & tooling is amazing.

 

[JonJay]

Time for a rant about Vans. I need to preface this by saying that I give companies a lot of leeway for dealing with problems. I own a business myself and I am all too aware that mistakes happen. Unfortunately, Vans have been utterly useless and inconsistent.

I'm also aware that these are parts for a kit which has been out of production for 25 years. But that doesn't absolve them from providing a decent and fair service to customers, and they are still choosing to sell these parts.

Just to outline the order of events:
- In 2024 I ordered the parts to build some RV6 ailerons. They arrived a few months later and I got on with the build. As described in the OP, the front bend radius around the water pipe was made in the wrong place. I was able to confirm this by comparing them with a previous set of skins which were made correctly (IE the bend in the right place). The skins also arrived with some dents which I wasn't too concerned about.

- Vans immediately promised to replace the skins over the phone. Nothing happened for a few weeks so I chased up and was told by someone else that they would not send me replacements unless I returned the old ones... This argument dragged out over some weeks.

- A few months later, I get an email out of the blue saying that they would send me new skins free of charge. Great! They promised to ship within the next couple of months but as expected this dragged out, which I didn't mind.

- 2 weeks ago (a year since the problem was raised with vans) one skin shows up which has the same problem as before. I remind Vans that they'd only shipped one skin (this turned out to be a mistake) so they sent the second one fairly quickly. The second one was correct! Well, the second skin was made in 2021 according to the label, whereas the incorrect one was made last October.

View attachment 111717

- I then show Vans the problem, with many photos of the skins side by side and explaining what the problem was. Again, different responses from different people. One of the tech support guys opted to simply insult me by saying that the older kits require more skill to build, until I sent photos of the two skins side by side, after which he recommended replacement. The case then moved on to someone else who initially seemed helpful then just fobbed me off by saying that the parts were made "within tolerance".

Now, I get that the older kits were not the same as today's lego kits. But this was a pre-punched pre-formed skin, with one of the forms made in the wrong place. If it were a blank sheet of aluminium supplied for a plans build, then sure I expect to form it myself, but in buying the pre made part I am therefore not expecting to have to re-form a 4 foot section of aluminium.

For Vans to drag this out over a year and then finally wash their hands of it is just really poor and I'm very disappointed with them.

I've given up trying to get any more parts from Vans so I spent quite some time designing a form for 3d printing so I could move the radius back to where it's supposed to be and salvage the last set of skins which were mostly ready for final assembly. These were mounted to a steel square section and then located using pins though the pre-punched water pipe rivet holes. BTW, the skin outline and prepunched holes were all in the right places, as was the trailing edge bend.

View attachment 111718

View attachment 111719

It took some time to get the form correct because it needed to both add a radius on one side while removing part of it on the other.

These sections were then clamped together.

View attachment 111720

It worked!! Now the radius has moved to the right place and I can finally finish making the ailerons.

View attachment 111721


Hopefully in time Vans will regain their old customer service ethics. If they treat me poorly over some small parts like this, no way would I entertain building a whole kit.

Well done. Building a 3, 4, or 6 requires some creative problem solving, but not usually to this degree.
Nobody can question the placard that will state you as the manufacturer.